I forgot to mentiont that your comment about people living in cities being dependent on welfare is a serious stereotype. You have no idea how many people living in cities are in poverty much less the reasons why some of them may be living in poverty. It is not just dependency on welfare - in fact I am not even sure how to quantify it. Didn't Clinton end welfare as we know it and put caps on welfare and force singly mothers to work?

Why people vote Republican or Democrat is most likely much more complicated than just values and interests.

I got my lines crossed. Voters are as finicky as you describe. The interests at play in an election are much more apt to encourage political action in a more purposeful fashion.

Quote:

I forgot to mentiont that your comment about people living in cities being dependent on welfare is a serious stereotype. You have no idea how many people living in cities are in poverty much less the reasons why some of them may be living in poverty. It is not just dependency on welfare

Well there is certainly a combination of factors. But a the lack of knowledge and motivation to engage in wealth generation rather than subsistence living is certainly a problem as it is in say, rural trailer parks.

Quote:

I think you are being far too unfair to a very large group of people - people living in American cities.

But when someone calls people in Republican States "dumb" they're being an honest referee? Stereotyping either group is bad and if there are a bunch of "excuses" for people in cities there are a bunch of excuses for people in Red States.

What America needs is a good center candidate. It has been proven time and time again that mixed economy's are the most financially stable.

. . .

Without increases to wages for the masses we will not ever see a strong America again.

Does the OP recognize the tension between these two sentences? I do not associate a minimum wage increase aka "increases to wages for the masses" with centrism. Indeed, Obama has failed to deliver such a minimum wage increase. If he plans to follow up on his failure in a second-term, he has not often expressed it, perhaps preferring that people forget his broken promise.

Forget the Red State/Blue State noise, American workers are struggling. A recent study indicated that while a majority of the jobs lost during the depression were middle-wage jobs, a majority of the jobs regained have been low-wage jobs. See this Net Change in Occupational Employment. Note that middle-wage jobs are those paying between $13.84-$21.13/hour.

These middle-wage jobs include more than FIRE economy jobs, they also include office managers and administrative workers, secretaries and administrative assistants, maintenance and repair workers, data entry, production managers and operation workers, and sales workers and drivers. Midwage Occupations with weakest recovery growth.

I identify as a soft-libertarian. But, I am beginning to acknowledge the truth: we require old school left- and non-neoliberal left-wing solutions to our problems. We should look to the following:

* Stronger private-sector unions

* A robust Federal minimum wage, with pushes for higher minimum wages in coastal states but exemptions for young workers

* Significantly higher tax brackets for the wealthy, particularly

* Very narrow tax rate distinctions between long-term capital gains and ordinary income (no more than a 10% disparity)

Obama has made a single, important accomplishment for the middle-class: the PPACA, aka Obamacare. Healthcare costs have been eating away at middle-wage incomes for years. But it is not nearly enough.

The problem is the country continues to move to the right. I think the main reason is the abandonment of Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was fairly left - at least as left as you talk about until Bill Clinton. The success of Ronald Regan moved the country to the right and the further success of Bill Clinton has move the Democratic Party to the right.

The only way to move the Democratic Party to the left is for Americans to abandon the Republican party and for left leaning people to join the Democratic Party and move it leftward. And, America needs more people to vote for a major candidate, preferably Democrat.

I have no problem with Obama governing from the center; it is a political necessity. I just think we need to move the center leftward. In my lifetime, the center has never been this far right. It probably has NEVER been this far right, though I am not exactly sure. I have never seen the Democrats so moderate and the Republicans so far-rigtht wing. Eisenhower and Nixon look like Democrats compared to the Repbublican Party of today.

Anyway, the movement to move the center leftward start today. Think about it.

The problem is the country continues to move to the right. I think the main reason is the abandonment of Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was fairly left - at least as left as you talk about until Bill Clinton. The success of Ronald Regan moved the country to the right and the further success of Bill Clinton has move the Democratic Party to the right.

The only way to move the Democratic Party to the left is for Americans to abandon the Republican party and for left leaning people to join the Democratic Party and move it leftward. And, America needs more people to vote for a major candidate, preferably Democrat.

I have no problem with Obama governing from the center; it is a political necessity. I just think we need to move the center leftward. In my lifetime, the center has never been this far right. It probably has NEVER been this far right, though I am not exactly sure. I have never seen the Democrats so moderate and the Republicans so far-rigtht wing. Eisenhower and Nixon look like Democrats compared to the Repbublican Party of today.

Anyway, the movement to move the center leftward start today. Think about it.

Things will swing back to the left, at least among voters. The right has lost its mind and more and more people are becoming aware of it. So why does the GOP control the House? I sincerely believe that back in 2010 a lot of voters were just sick of Congress and voted for "the other guy". The fact Alan Grayson is probably going to be voted back into office is one example.

Demographics are also playing a role. The GOP is ensuring its demise with its anti-immigrant platform and not helping itself whatsoever in its stubborn position on gay marriage and having so many dumb asses saying things that sound like voodoo science. What has happened in Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina (all solidly Republican states 12 years ago but now swing states) will expand elsewhere if current trends continue. Notice how no states have gone the other direction (at least in the case of the Presidential election).

Of course none of that is economic policy related, which is what you two brought up. In that area, I really don't see much change since there is way too much corporate influence via lobbyists and campaign contributions. It will require significant leadership and power to overcome those special interest groups. Unfortunately Obama isn't that person. I don't know of any politicians at the national level who are. Maybe Bloomberg, but he won't be running for President.

What America needs is a good center candidate. It has been proven time and time again that mixed economy's are the most financially stable.

. . .

Without increases to wages for the masses we will not ever see a strong America again.

Does the OP recognize the tension between these two sentences? I do not associate a minimum wage increase aka "increases to wages for the masses" with centrism. Indeed, Obama has failed to deliver such a minimum wage increase. If he plans to follow up on his failure in a second-term, he has not often expressed it, perhaps preferring that people forget his broken promise.

Forget the Red State/Blue State noise, American workers are struggling. A recent study indicated that while a majority of the jobs lost during the depression were middle-wage jobs, a majority of the jobs regained have been low-wage jobs. See this Net Change in Occupational Employment. Note that middle-wage jobs are those paying between $13.84-$21.13/hour.

These middle-wage jobs include more than FIRE economy jobs, they also include office managers and administrative workers, secretaries and administrative assistants, maintenance and repair workers, data entry, production managers and operation workers, and sales workers and drivers. Midwage Occupations with weakest recovery growth.

I identify as a soft-libertarian. But, I am beginning to acknowledge the truth: we require old school left- and non-neoliberal left-wing solutions to our problems. We should look to the following:

* Stronger private-sector unions

* A robust Federal minimum wage, with pushes for higher minimum wages in coastal states but exemptions for young workers

* Significantly higher tax brackets for the wealthy, particularly

* Very narrow tax rate distinctions between long-term capital gains and ordinary income (no more than a 10% disparity)

Obama has made a single, important accomplishment for the middle-class: the PPACA, aka Obamacare. Healthcare costs have been eating away at middle-wage incomes for years. But it is not nearly enough.

Obamacare may not be good for the middle class. My firm is increasing my share of health costs b/c of it. We'll have to wait and see.

I don't get the lefty/liberal obsession with taxes on the rich. What the f do I care - as a middle class guy - what a rich *beep* pays in taxes. I care what that rich *beep* pays ME (and you). All this talk about taxes is pretty useful to the rich pricks. What's 5% of billions?

And I know. Oh Titus, don't you care about the deficit? No. I don't. The state can issue money and doesn't need either taxes or debt. Let's defer to Edison:

After that, we have to consider what the wage (regardless of wage v gdp) can buy. I suggest you read Margrit Kennedy (a German (!) economist). She is - as far as I know - the only person on earth who researches the impact that credit money and interest have on the price level. For example, her research suggests that as much as 40% of what we pay in rent is covering interest. Etc.

So:

4) Social credit or similar (smash international finance into a billion pieces)

A centrist will never ever do the above (less maybe the union thing). Only the farrrrrrrr right will. The far, far, far right.

Independently minded conservatives may have no obvious candidate in this election, which pits two major-party exponents of the welfare-warfare state against one another, as well as a handful of minor-party contenders. Obamacare or Romneycare? Guantanamo or double Guantanamo? In this symposium, 29 of our writers confront the choice and explain their reasoning.

If you're interested in this sort of thing it is a good read. I liked Lind's contribution:

Quote:

The great clay god Democracy again offers his devotees sound and fury, signifying nothing. Obama and Romney both bow to the same party, the Establishment party. Whichever wins, nothing of importance will change. Washington will still attempt to rule the world. The Fed’s presses will keep on rolling. The national debt will continue to rise. Free trade will reduce what islands of the middle class endure. Overreach will remain Washington’s policy in everything, until we totter and fall. This time isn’t different.

...

Like all false gods, Democracy can’t deliver. In comparison, the divine right of kings sounds downright scientific. So to it on election day let us turn. “We beseech Thee, O Lord, once again to grant us a Godly monarch.” Pray it before voting, or not voting. You might add a request for an Austrian Hapsburg. He knows them well. They are accustomed to ruling over ramshackled, polyglot, decaying empires. Erzherzog Karl should feel right at home.

Dare to dream.

Sailer:

Quote:

Do you remember the 1996 presidential campaign, when Bob Dole was played by Norm MacDonald on “Saturday Night Live”? MacDonald would end his “Weekend Update” segments with the self-interested plea “Hey, vote for Bob Dole” in the increasingly desperate hope that Norm would have a steady gig for the next four years. (A few months after Dole lost, the comedian was indeed fired from SNL.)

The rise of Barack Obama is one of the funnier things that America has ever done to itself. So far, though, few have allowed themselves to get the joke. If Obama loses, expect the question of how such a moody, low-energy loner became president to be immediately shoved down the national memory hole of that-which-we-shall-never-mention-again.

Unfortunately for me, after more than a half-decade researching his life, I still have plenty of good Obama material left. I know how Norm MacDonald used to feel.

Quote:

Justin Raimondo

Although I’m not actually voting this year, I am indeed rooting for Obama. More precisely, I’m rooting against Romney. The reason is simple: Romney means war.

Granted, we have no guarantee of peace if the president is reelected. The chances are roughly 50-50: that’s a lot better than the 100 percent certainty of war with Iran if Romney wins.

I don’t think we’ve ever had a candidate more in thrall to a foreign leader than we have in the person of Mitt Romney. Here is a candidate for the White House attacking his opponent for not visiting Israel when he was in the Middle East – as if the president of the United States is some sort of vassal. It is truly astonishing to hear Romney criticize Obama for saying he wanted to put “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel – forgetting that the U.S. and Israel are different countries. Or is that not true anymore?

We are in the midst of a campaign by Israel and its amen corner to drag us into another war in the Middle East, an attack on Iran that would be devastating in its human consequences. And they are rallying behind Mitt Romney. Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has broken with all precedent and made no secret of his preference for the Republican candidate.

The great danger is that Americans are so sick of that man in the White House that Romney will triumph. I can imagine no greater disaster.

Quote:

Scott McConnell

I’m voting for Obama without qualm or hesitation. I was never really taken with him, and have not become enthusiastic over the past four years. But his temperament is steady and his results are, actually, better than decent: his policies put the brakes on the financial meltdown spooking Wall Street (how quickly they forget) and the auto bailouts have worked out. The verdict is out on Obamacare, but it if turns out badly, it will be modified or repealed.

Romney exudes the smugness of a man who never had to fight for his identity or place in life: a big supporter of the Vietnam war (while securing, naturally, multiple draft deferments); a fortune made from financial manipulations in the deregulation era. It is impossible to imagine him ever wondering about the viability or fairness of a system in which he can make a quarter of a billion dollars chopping up and “harvesting” (to use Bain’s term) American companies while the incomes of most of his fellow citizens stagnate.

Worst of all, Romney is very likely to ignite a war with Iran, home to the largest educated middle class in the Mideast. He has stacked his campaign with neoconservatives and exhibits a startling affinity for the views of Bibi Netanyahu. The real Romney denigrates the culture of Palestinians, either from ignorance of the conditions the occupation imposes on them or from racial or religious malice.

The tenacity of the neoconservative hold on the GOP continues to amaze: in no American political party since the Progressives of Henry Wallace have the sympathizers of a foreign state played so critical a role. Between neoconservative intellectuals and the Christian Zionists, the GOP is now wedded completely to Israeli perspectives. Romney will bomb Iran to ensure Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, while cheering from the sidelines as Israel completes a full-blown apartheid complex on the West Bank. The consequences to follow such events even Romney’s beloved Wall Street will find hard to stomach. And unlike a misconceived domestic initiative, wars and their blowback cannot be corrected by new legislation in Congress.

Scott McConnell is a founding editor of The American Conservative.

All these guys (maybe less the hardcore libertarian Raimondo) were solidly mainstream, faith in the system guys up until about halfway though Bush 2. All have utterly lost faith in the system. That's the best sign of hope (for change!) I can think of.

Stagnant job growth: During Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts fell from 36th to 47th out of 50 states in job creation, while the overall U.S. economy grew. Declining manufacturing: By the end of Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts had lost more than 40,000 manufacturing jobs—a rate twice the national average. Higher taxes: Gov. Romney raised taxes on the middle class, but pushed through a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited 278 of the wealthiest individuals in MA. Highest debt in the nation: Under Mitt Romney, Massachusetts’ debt burden grew to the highest per person in the nation. Increased government spending: State spending increased every year while Romney was in office, and he left behind a $1 billion deficit for the next governor. Jobs outsourced overseas: Governor Romney failed to protect good jobs in Massachusetts, and actually outsourced state jobs to India.

Impressive, governorship Rmoney! Nicah! Maybe he can do the same for the whole country. this guy is going to destroy America's fragile recovery. He is bad news for the economy. Well, except for defense stocks.

“Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country.”

When Romney took office, the unemployment rate in Massachusetts had been below the national average for nearly a decade. By the time he left office, unemployment in Massachusetts was higher than the national average for the first time since 1995.
Even as job growth lagged, Governor Romney vetoed or cut more than $100 million in funding for economic development projects and the promotion of manufacturing—including programs for skills training and investments in high-tech manufacturing and entrepreneurs.
By the end of Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts had lost more than 40,000 manufacturing jobs—a rate twice the national average.

[Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed 3.18.12; Boston Globe, 7.29.07]

Quote:

Governor Romney vetoed a bill that would have banned state contractors from outsourcing state work overseas.

He cut jobs but still managed to increase waste and bureaucracy. Mitt's magic!

Quote:

The state bureaucracy grew while Romney was governor, and he filled important positions with party loyalists and allies. As he was leaving office, Romney appointed his communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, to a housing board that would have earned him a lucrative state pension

And just food for thought- Who has been better for the environment- W. Bush or Al Gore? The answer might not be as obvious as you think. Think which one has actually persuaded people to change their energy consumption habits. That's right, Bush. Now this is because of his terrible foreign policy and Iraq debacle as well as disaster prone oil refineries and gutting of FEMA. But through sheer ineptitude (or evilness if you think Cheney is in charge) which led to the spike in gas prices, Americans actually changed their energy consumption habits and sought out fuel efficiency. Hybrids went from some geeky idea to being another "guy" thing to one-up each other on.

Sometimes human beings are so dumb, in order to bring about social good you need Vader-esqe Republican policies that manipulate schmoes into doing something for the better.

Impressive, governorship Rmoney! Nicah! Maybe he can do the same for the whole country. this guy is going to destroy America's fragile recovery. He is bad news for the economy. Well, except for defense stocks.

That's whack! You underestimate Mitt's awesomeness.

Quote:

Without being able to remember his “simple” five point plan, Ann Romney promises that just electing Mitt Romney will improve the economy. She said, “Just his election itself is going to instantly turn up the gas and get people more optimistic, but he has five things that are simple for people to understand: One is to get rid of regulation; one is to start using our natural resources; one is to turn to human capital, which is education, and get that working again; and…oh, I’m not sure on the last two!”

As much as I distrust Romney, when it comes to the economy I actually believe he understands how to fix it. He was one of the top consultants in the world (at Bain Capital) and actually something of a prodigy. His whole career was taking failing companies and turning them around. Despite all the nonsense from the left about him being a corporate raider, his success rate was actually remarkable.

Now whether or not he actually intends to use his knowledge to fix the economy, or whether he'll just use his political power to further boost Wall Street at the expense of the middle class, remains to be seen. I suspect the latter, since I don't trust Romney the politician. But regardless, he is far more qualified than Obama (who knows nothing about economics) when it comes to fixing the economy. It's just hard to know his motives for sure, since he is such a flip-flopper. It's possible we could get lucky and he actually would try to roll back government regulation and cut taxes to help small businesses. I wouldn't hold my breath though...

Now whether or not he actually intends to use his knowledge to fix the economy, or whether he'll just use his political power to further boost Wall Street at the expense of the middle class, remains to be seen. I suspect the latter, since I don't trust Romney the politician. But regardless, he is far more qualified than Obama (who knows nothing about economics) when it comes to fixing the economy. It's just hard to know his motives for sure, since he is such a flip-flopper. It's possible we could get lucky and he actually would try to roll back government regulation and cut taxes to help small businesses. I wouldn't hold my breath though...

Yep, he comes across as a liar. We don't know what he truly intends to do. I can't think of another Presidential candidate who I trusted less and made me more nervous.

And I don't mean to imply that all the others came across as trustworthy or didn't BS. They all did, but at least they were all generally consistent with their BS!

Even more reason to vote for Gary Johnson. He doesn't BS and you sure as heck know where he stands.

Now whether or not he actually intends to use his knowledge to fix the economy, or whether he'll just use his political power to further boost Wall Street at the expense of the middle class, remains to be seen. I suspect the latter, since I don't trust Romney the politician. But regardless, he is far more qualified than Obama (who knows nothing about economics) when it comes to fixing the economy. It's just hard to know his motives for sure, since he is such a flip-flopper. It's possible we could get lucky and he actually would try to roll back government regulation and cut taxes to help small businesses. I wouldn't hold my breath though...

Yep, he comes across as a liar. We don't know what he truly intends to do. I can't think of another Presidential candidate who I trusted less and made me more nervous.

And I don't mean to imply that all the others came across as trustworthy or didn't BS. They all did, but at least they were all generally consistent with their BS!

Even more reason to vote for Gary Johnson. He doesn't BS and you sure as heck know where he stands.

Yeah, I agree with you. Except I would personally say I actually trust Obama even less. Simply because he comes across as more ideological despite all the lies he feeds us. Romney the politician just seems like a prototypical slime-ball and flip-flopper, but still fairly pragmatic if you read between the lines. When he talks tough about strengthening the military etc. that makes me nervous, but I think he is less ideological than Bush or the neo-Cons. That's just a gut feeling, however, and not based on much actual evidence.

Bottom line is wouldn't vote for either, but I think if I had to choose one I'd lean more to Romney. Gary Johnson is a far superior choice.

As much as I distrust Romney, when it comes to the economy I actually believe he understands how to fix it. He was one of the top consultants in the world (at Bain Capital) and actually something of a prodigy. His whole career was taking failing companies and turning them around[b].

I think your idea of prodigy and my idea of prodigy must differ because I always thought prodigy meant being really good at something.

Quote:

Thanks to leverage, 10 of roughly 67 major deals by Bain Capital during Romney’s watch produced about 70 percent of the firm’s profits.

In 1992, Bain Capital bought American Pad & Paper by financing 87 percent of the purchase price. In the next three years, Ampad borrowed to make acquisitions, repay existing debt and pay Bain Capital and its investors $60 million in dividends. As a result, [b]the company’s debt swelled from $11 million in 1993 to $444 million by 1995. The $14 million in annual interest expense on this debt dwarfed the company’s $4.7 million operating cash flow. The proceeds of an initial public offering in July 1996 were used to pay Bain Capital $48 million for part of its stake and to reduce the company’s debt to $270 million. From 1993 to 1999, Bain Capital charged Ampad about $18 million in various fees. By 1999, the company’s debt was back up to $400 million. Unable to pay the interest costs and drained of cash paid to Bain Capital in fees and dividends, Ampad filed for bankruptcy the following year. Senior secured lenders got less than 50 cents on the dollar, unsecured lenders received two- tenths of a cent on the dollar, and several hundred jobs were lost. Bain Capital had reaped capital gains of $107 million on its $5.1 million investment.
Bain Capital’s acquisition in 1994 of Dade International, a supplier of in-vitro diagnostic products, was 81 percent financed by debt. Of the $85 million in equity, about $27 million came from Bain with the rest coming from a group of investors that included Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
From 1995 to 1999, Bain Capital tripled Dade’s debt from about $300 million to $902 million.
In the two years following the acquisition in 1993 of GS Industries, a steel mill, for $8 million, Bain Capital increased the company’s debt to $378 million on operating income of less than a 10th of that amount. By the time the company went bankrupt in 2001, it owed $554 million in debt against assets valued at $395 million. Many creditors lost money, and 750 workers lost their jobs.

Bain Capital’s acquisition of Stage Stores, a department- store chain, in 1988 was 96 percent financed by debt (mostly in junk bonds) -- an extreme level for a cyclical and very competitive low-margin business. Bain sold a large part of its stake in 1997 for a $184 million gain, three years before the company filed for bankruptcy because of its inability to service its $600 million debt.

visitorq wrote:

Despite all the nonsense from the left about him being a corporate raider, his success rate was actually remarkable.

I hate to burst your bubble but if you watch the video the man himself says the plan is to harvest them for a significant profit, he says those exact words in the first 15 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EsxNYXW5i8